Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
19/00984/B Page 1 of 8
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 19/00984/B Applicant : Mr Chris Compston Proposal : Alterations, erection of three dwellings for tourist accommodation, erection of storage shed and creation of driveway Site Address : Hampton Court Quines Hill Port Soderick Isle Of Man IM4 1AZ
Senior Planning Officer: Mr Jason Singleton Photo Taken :
Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 04.08.2020 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposal is not within a named settlement in accordance with the settlement hierarchy and would encourage unsustainable use. Accordingly it is contrary to Spatial Policy 3 & 5; Strategic Policy 2 and 10.
R 2. The proposal is not of a nature which would be supported in the countryside under those policies which set out the exceptional forms of development which would be allowed in the countryside. Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated that there is an overriding national need and a site for which there are no reasonable and acceptable alternatives. Therefore the proposal is considered to undermine General Policy 3 and Housing Policy 4, which seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake.
R 3. The application site is not zoned for development and is within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. The creation of three new residential dwellings in an area not zoned for development would result in an inappropriate development in the countryside contrary to Environment Policy 1 and Environment Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
R 4. The Department is not satisfied that there is sufficient justification for the proposed building to warrant setting aside the presumption against development outside of areas zoned for development. Furthermore, the proposed size and isolated position within the countryside is not considered appropriate and would harm the character and quality of the landscape. As such, the proposal is concluded to represent unwarranted development that is detrimental to
==== PAGE 2 ====
19/00984/B Page 2 of 8
the amenity of the countryside contrary to the provisions of General Policy 3, part (f) and Environmental Policies 1,2 and 15 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4) (or 4(2)):
Beaconsfield Farm, Richmond Hill, Douglas as their land adjoins the site and they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status.
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4) (or 4(2)):
Claremount, Old Castletown Road, Port Soderick; Ballaleshin, Quines HIll, Port Soderick
as they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy. __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is part of the land associated to Hampton Court residential dwelling, Old Castletown Road Santon. At the end of the existing tree lined driveway is a detached substantial house, that sits to the north of the Old Castletown Road as it passes between Quine's Hill and Ballaveare. The house is included in the emerging plan as worthy of consideration for Registration.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the erection of a storage shed (25m long x 11m wide) with a roller shutter door and pedestrian door in the north east elevation. The building is proposed to be clad with Cedar timber vertical boarding with zinc standing seam roof. Part of the application would see the excavation of material to re-profile this area to create a level platform to erect the building upon, with the use of gabion retaining walls to create a hidden service yard. The use of the shed is for bee-hives and agricultural equipment, log stores and tractor cover. This aspect of the application is located to the north of the dwellinghouse to field 522377 which includes species planting.
2.2 Construction of 2 dwellings approx. 60m2 (gate Houses) featuring one bedroom accommodation which would flank the main entrance gates; 1 dwelling approx. 76m2 (lodge) featuring two bedrooms, to replicate the existing lodge on site to the west corner of the site. All three proposed dwellings are to be used as tourist accommodation. The above is adjacent to the highway to field 524048. The proposed buildings would be single storey in height under a pitch slate tiled roof, finished in painted render with UPVC windows.
2.3 Construction of a new splayed entrance way, 37m wide including the erection of gate pillars (3.5m high) and gates (2.5m high x 5m wide) central to the entrance. The proposed
==== PAGE 3 ====
19/00984/B Page 3 of 8
gates and walling are set back 10m from the edge of the highway and further bounded by the construction of 64m of boundary wall 1.0m high with pillars.
2.4 The application is accompanied with a design and access statement, depicting the history of the site and mainly the dwellinghouse of Hampton Court, and the origins of the proposed gate house and their inspiration of design, the master plan for the entire site with proposed planting to create formal gardens, Colonnades and works to the main house, and the uniqueness of this site and scope for further development to enhance the site.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area recognised as being an area of 'Open Space / Agricultural', under the Braddan Parish District Local Plan Order 1991 (Planning Circular 6/91). The site is not within a Conservation Area; but is within an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982.
3.2 Within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, the following policies are considered to be relevant in the determination of this application:
3.3 Strategic Policy 2; New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions (2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3.
3.4 Strategic Policy 10: New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to: (a) minimise journeys, especially by private car; (b) make best use of public transport; (c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and (d) encourage pedestrian movement
3.5 Spatial Policy 3 states: "The following villages are identified as Service Villages: o Laxey o Jurby o Andreas o Kirk Michael o St Johns o Foxdale o Port St Mary o Ballasalla o Union Mills
3.6 Spatial Policy 5; "New development will be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3".
3.7 The relevant parts of General Policy 3 state; "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of: (a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10); (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11); (c) previously developed land(1) which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current
==== PAGE 4 ====
19/00984/B Page 4 of 8
situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment; (d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14); (e) location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services; (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry; (g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and (h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage.
3.8 Environment Policy 1: The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative.
3.9 Environment Policy 2: The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that: (a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or (b) the location for the development is essential.
3.10 Housing Policy 4 states; "New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans: otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances: (a) essential housing for agricultural workers in accordance with Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10; (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11; and (c) the replacement of existing rural dwellings and abandoned dwellings in accordance with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14."
3.11 Environment Policy 15 states: Where the Department is satisfied that there is agricultural or horticultural need for a new building (including a dwelling), sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside, and that the impact of this development including buildings, accesses, servicing etc. is acceptable, such development must be sited as close as is practically possible to existing building groups and be appropriate in terms of scale, materials, colour, siting and form to ensure that all new developments are sympathetic to the landscape and built environment of which they will form a part.
Only in exceptional circumstances will buildings be permitted in exposed or isolated areas or close to public highways and in all such cases will be subject to appropriate landscaping. The nature and materials of construction must also be appropriate to the purposes for which it is intended.
Where new agricultural buildings are proposed next to or close to existing residential properties, care must be taken to ensure that there is no unacceptable adverse impact through any activity, although it must be borne in mind that many farming activities require buildings
==== PAGE 5 ====
19/00984/B Page 5 of 8
which are best sited, in landscape terms, close to existing building groups in the rural landscape."
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY
10/00264/B - Creation of a vehicular access. Approved.
10/00266/C - Change of use of east wing of existing dwelling to corporate use. Refused.
09/00461/B - Erection of a timber building to be used as a farm shop with new access and parking. Refused. 05/02086/B - Erection of a two storey extension to rear to provide additional living accommodation. Approved. 04/00533/B - Erection of a replacement conservatory. Approved.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Braddan Commissioners (07/10/19) comment to object as the proposal would be contrary to Environment Policy 1, Environmental Policy 16 and Business Policy 11, amongst others. (25/11/19) - on the amended plans continue to object as previously recorded. (21/01/20) on the amended plans, their objection still remains.
5.2 Highways Services have commented (10/10/19) do not object but see a condition for a S.106 Highways agreement for the works joining the highway.
5.3 DEFA Biodiversity Officer commented (26/09/19) seeks a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal; the works to the pond could affect protected frogs; Any trees to be removed will require a bat survey to ascertain the presence of such.
5.4 DEFA Arboricultural Officer provides comments (25/09/19) on the removal of existing trees that contribute to the amenities of the area; requests and Arboricultural statement and Tree protection plan; requests a landscaping proposal to mitigate the visual impact. (12/11/19) updated email confirms the need for an arboricultural tree protection plan or landscaping details. (06/01/20) on the submission of a Tree protection plan and Arboricultural Method Statement, asks that if the decision is to be approved that five conditions are imposed on the decision concerning the tree planting; tree protection; retention of trees; monitoring plan.
Comments received from the consultations period are summarised as below and their full statements can be read online.
5.5 The owners of Beconsfield Farm, Richmond Hill, have commented (18/09/19) as their land abuts the application site to the west and north. Their concerns are predominately focused to the proposed agricultural barn and the lack of detail concerning the level of engineering works to excavate the depth of the shed and its finished ground level impacting on the overall height of the shed; no details of bank retention following the excavation for the shed could lead to instability of the land; question whether the scope of the works remain in the applications control as the cross section drawing goes beyond the sod hedge.
5.6 The owners of Claremont, Old Castletown Road, comment (18/09/19) to object to the destruction of 90m of hedging replaced by walls, the height of the walls to single storey height; the loss of mature trees; not in keeping with the rural character of the area. (14/11/19) please the trees to the north of the existing entrance are to be retained however, their objection remains.
5.7 The owners of Ballashin, Quines Hill, have commented (18/09/19) comments on previous development in the area that include tourist accommodation but not implemented; the reasons for a previous refusal of a farm shop in 2009 are still valid; Question the demand for tourist accommodation in the area.
==== PAGE 6 ====
19/00984/B Page 6 of 8
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are;
(i) the broad location of the development - Strategic Policies 2; 10 and Spatial Policy 3; 5.
(ii) whether exceptional circumstances exist to the principle of development within the countryside - General Policy 3(b) & Housing Policy 4 & Environmental Policy 15.
(iii) the level of impact on the countryside in general and the Area of High Landscape Value (Environment Policies 1 and 2).
(i) The broad location of the development 6.2 The starting point here is the land designation, it is clear from the Development plan, the local plan and the written statement, the application site is within a rural and protected part of the countryside where any development is strictly controlled. The application is to be assessed for the creation of three new dwellings, an agricultural barn and revised entrance way in the countryside.
6.3 In considering this application as a whole, Strategic Policy 2 and Spatial Policy 3 identify areas of development to be located, generally within existing towns and villages. It cannot be said that this part of Port Soderick is within a named service village or within an existing town and is very much part of the open countryside as previously identified, by virtue the remoteness of the application site would be considered contrary to Strategic Policy 10 and its aims to promote integrated transport network through (a)-(d).
6.3 Through Strategic Policy 2 and spatial policy 5, development in the countryside is only permitted in exceptional circumstances, as detailed in paragraph 6.3 of the Strategic Plan, which is General Policy 3 as referenced in Spatial Policy 5. However, when assessed against Spatial Policy 5 and Strategic Policy 2 and Strategic Policy 10 of the Strategic Plan it is considered that the proposal would not be a sustainable location for 'development' and would be contrary to those policies, if an exception is not achievable through GP3.
6.4 To summarise, As identified earlier within the planning policy section of this report, this presumption against is set out in four different ways; the application site is not zoned for residential development under the 1982 Development Plan Order; Secondly, General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic plan, states that in such areas new dwellings will generally not be permitted; Thirdly, the site is not identified in an Area Plan being a town, village, or within a sustainable urban extension and there for contrary to the exceptions indicated in Housing Policy 4; Fourthly, The site is zoned within an area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance which seeks to prevent development, unless the development is essential or would not harm the character and quality of the landscape, which the proposal would fail on both counts and therefor a refusal can also legitimately be made on that basis.
(ii) Whether exceptional circumstances exist to the principle of development within the countryside.
6.5 In terms of planning policy there is a long established presumption against new residential development in the countryside. General Policy 3, and Housing Policy 4 both identify potential exceptions for development within such areas. More specifically, both General Policy 3 (paragraphs a, b & d) and Housing Policy 4 identifies three potential circumstances where residential development may be allowed. Firstly, if there is an essential need for an agricultural workers dwelling (agricultural condition attached requiring the property to be used only by full time agricultural workers only, which is proven to be justified); second, conversion of existing rural properties (i.e. traditional Manx stone barn); and thirdly the replacement of an existing dwelling with a new dwelling. From the level of information supplied there is no evidence that would indicate compliance with any of the three exceptions for new residential development in
==== PAGE 7 ====
19/00984/B Page 7 of 8
the countryside and would therefore be contrary to GP3 and HP4. Furthermore there is no agricultural or horticultural justification within this application for a new building to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside.
(iii) the level of impact on the countryside in general and the Area of High Landscape Value
6.6 It is perhaps important to also note Environmental Policy 1 and 2 where Environmental Policy 1 indicates that the countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake and development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative. It is not considered the various aspects of this proposal would have an over-riding national need and would be introducing a level harm by introducing urban built form in a protected rural area.
6.7 As the site is within an area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance, Environment Policy 2 also applies. This policy states that within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that, the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or the location for the development is essential.
6.8 As the principle of the development fails to satisfy the test of Environment Policy 1 and 2 which set out the exceptional forms of development allowed in the Countryside, and no information has been provided to suggest is of over-riding national need and a site for which there are no reasonable and acceptable alternatives. The proposal is considered to undermine those policies which seek to protect the countryside for its own sake.
CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposal as it stands would result in the creation of three new dwelling houses where at present there is none. The erection of an agricultural building where there is no justification for agricultural activity and the formation of a large entrance way where there is only a farm gate access to the field.
7.2 The Strategic Plan directs development in accordance with a Settlement Hierarchy to facilitate the delivery of sustainable development which has access to facilitates, reduces the need to travel and protects the countryside. Development within the countryside undermines this.
7.3 The Strategic Plan seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake and a concern is with incremental development in the countryside undermining policies that seek to protect it.
7.4 Approval of such a scheme would set a significant precedent for similar types of development through the countryside in the Isle of Man. The purpose of the planning system is to control the use and development of land in the public interest. That requires a consideration of what is most appropriate for the population of the island as a whole. The protection of the Manx countryside from development and the presumption that new housing should be directed to locations consistent with the principles of sustainable development are two of the most important themes running through the Strategic Plan, the purpose of which is to establish a consistent framework within which the public interest can be served by the planning system. When making a planning decision that has permanent consequences such as inappropriate development in the countryside.
7.5 On balance it is judged, the proposal is contrary to those aforementioned Policies of the Strategic Plan and does not meet the tests for exceptional development within the countryside. It is therefore concluded that the planning application is recommended for refusal.
==== PAGE 8 ====
19/00984/B Page 8 of 8
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Refused Date : 06.08.2020
Determining officer Signed : S BUTLER
Stephen Butler
Head of Development Management
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal